- Title: Revista Guillermo de Ockham
- Short title: Guillermo Ockham
- SciELO acronym: RGDO
- e-ISSN: 2256-3202
- DOI journal: https://doi.org/10.21500/issn.2256-3202
- Frequency: biannual (January-June) (July-December)
The violation of ethics in scientific studies, that results in a publication, affects academic and public confidence in researchers, research groups, scientific communities, institutions, sponsors, and journals in general. Equally, it damages reputation, leads to loss of time, effort, and economic resources, and puts the participants of a study and the community it could impact at risk. Therefore, principles, definitions, guidelines, and procedures are required to ensure quality, transparency, and rigor.
To this end, the Journal follows the flowcharts on handling ethical issues in publishing suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); the principles of transparency and best practices in scholarly publishing of COPE and other bodies; the Council of Science Editors (CSE) publication ethics condensed in the White Paper on Publication Ethics; the Singapore Declaration on Research Integrity and the Montreal Declaration on Research Integrity in Research Collaborations Crossing Borders; the Hong Kong Principles; the Scientific, Technical and Administrative Standards for Health Research in Colombia (Resolution number 8430 of 1993); the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights; the Helsinki Declaration on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects; ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines for animal research of the National Center for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research; to the Deontology and bioethics of the psychologist in Colombia; to the Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct of the American Psychological Association (APA); to the laws on copyright in Colombia: Law 599 of 2000 and Law 1915 of 2018; and to the Ethical policies for scientific dissemination and publication at the Universidad de San Buenaventura Colombia.
These guidelines should be taken as a guide for the responsible production of research and are in no way a regulation. Therefore, researchers and sponsors should follow the official policies of the appropriate national agencies and organizations.
In line with the above, the journal will require that the writings and authors comply with the principles and responsibilities of scientific research and publication integrity to avoid fraud and violation of ethics and copyright.
It is the behavior or procedure that is executed correctly in the practice of science, and in which honesty, transparency, justice, and responsibility stand out. It presupposes respect for ethical and legal principles in the preparation, conduction, and publication of research. The Singapore statement on research integrity is shown below.
The value and benefits of research are vitally dependent on the integrity of research. While there can be and are national and disciplinary differences in the way research is organized and conducted, there are also principles and professional responsibilities that are fundamental to the integrity of research wherever it is undertaken.
Fraud is an action that goes against truth and righteousness. Therefore, scientific fraud is the materialization of one or more behaviors identified as bad practices that harm individuals, communities and institutions. The most relevant of these are presented below.
Fabrication of data
Fabrication and use of fictitious data in research and publication, presenting it as real or factual data from the research exercise.
Manipulation of materials, technical equipment or processes, through either change or omission of the data or results of an investigation. Falsification is intended to obtain desired results that prove hypotheses or conform to the objectives of the study.
Assertion of ownership of texts, sections of text, methods or any other information (tables, figures, graphs, photos, etc.), as well as published procedures or techniques, without acknowledging, citing or referring to the original author.
Reuse of content published by the same author in a new publication, without giving the respective credit (self-citation) and passing it off as original, novel or unpublished.
Inclusion of natural or legal persons as authors in the research or in the writing of the article without having had a real, clear and direct participation in these processes. Other forms of inappropriate authorship are: excluding co-authors who actively participated, claiming undeserved authorship in their own name, including external persons as authors without their due consent, affiliating an article to more than one institution when the research was carried out in a single entity, and sending the article to a journal without the consent of all the authors.
hree cases of this action can be identified: duplicate, fragmented and inflated publication. Duplicate publication is that in which the author republishes his article, partially or fully, in one or more other publishers or journals. Fragmented publication, also known as salami publication, seeks to divide a study into several parts in order to increase the number of articles to be published in different journals or publishers. Finally, inflated publication refers to articles in which parts of the previously published results are added without giving credit or informing the editor.
To make the results of a research project known in advance without carrying out the necessary scientific checks or tests.
Agreement between journal editors to exchange citations, thus forcing authors to accept references in their articles in order to increase their citation indicators and move up in the quartiles.
Publishing biasesIn the authors: Giving greater relevance to a study or studies, without taking into account other research in the same line, just because they contradict their results. In the editors: Rejecting articles that have not confirmed the hypotheses, either because of the origin of the authors or because of the lack of research career of many of them.
Authors may incur a violation of ethics for: inclusion of references that have not been cited (in order to add citations or increase the impact of authors, institutions, journals, etc.), the inclusion of citations that are not thematically coherent with the research; excessive use of self-citations, omission of important research information, concealment of data, endangerment of people, communities, animals or the environment, refusal to provide data for validation of the results, thereby not supporting the validation of the research, concealment of conflicts of interest, attestation to institutions that did not finance or support the research, reveal of personal data of research participants without authorization.
Editors may incur in a violation of ethics for: bias in the selection of articles, failure to peer review manuscripts, preferential treatment by authors, friends or colleagues (conflict of interest), violation of confidentiality, and intentional delays in the editing process.
Reviewers may incur in a violation of ethics for: plagiarism of the ideas, texts or data they review, acceptance of invitations when there are conflicts of interest and they do not declare them, violation of confidentiality and anonymity, and intentional delays in the review process.
Sponsors may incur in a violation of ethics for: modification, suppression or omission of results that they consider inconvenient, failure to clearly and appropriately disclose their participation in the study, pressure to include other persons as authors, refusal to allow the authors access to the data, and intentional delay in publication.
The parties involved directly or indirectly in the research and publication process are diverse and, therefore, share responsibilities. Among them are the sponsoring institution, the author(s), the editor(s), and the peer reviewers.
As promoter, manager or funder of research projects for the advancement of science, the sponsoring entity has the responsibility to:
As a creator of scientific content, every author must revolutionize the current way of thinking about science, as well as innovate and propose new ways to meet needs, solve problems and find alternatives to social demands. Therefore, the author has the responsibility to:
The editor, the highest representative of a journal, has the responsibility to:
Reviewers (evaluators or arbiters) are essential for the quality and continuity of scientific publications, which is why they must guarantee that the contents of a publication are rigorous. Therefore, they have the responsibility to:
The editor is responsible for receiving and processing all complaints and appeals. Depending on their nature and complexity, the editor should take into account COPE protocols, and rely on his or her editorial committee and other institutional bodies (ethics committee, intellectual property committee, legal counsel, etc.). All complaints and appeals should be communicated to the editor via e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org; if the editor has a conflict of interest or the complaints and appeals are against him/her, they should be written to the e-mail address of the editorial director email@example.com, who will receive and deal with all complaints and appeals following the protocols indicated above.
Fraud or violation of research or publication ethics can be identified by the editor or editorial team in light of the analysis of a similarity report; peer reviewers, who inform the editor about errors, anomalies or fraud; and the scientific community, the audience of the journal or other persons who denounce the misconduct.
The editor, as the highest representative of the journal, must take the necessary steps within his or her reach to safeguard the scientific integrity of the publication and in no case will allow any fraudulent action that violates ethics to go unnoticed.
In the face of potential malpractices detected, the editor should rely on his or her editorial committee and follow the COPE guidelines, namely: maintain confidentiality, do not make accusations, take a neutral position in accordance with the facts, keep and protect complete and accurate records of the case, give the accused the opportunity to respond to the complaint, inform all those involved in the process (authors, funders, other editors, etc.), and delegate investigations to the relevant institutional bodies (ethics committee, intellectual property committee, legal counsel, or the institution responsible for the investigation, etc.) and delegate investigations to the relevant institutional bodies (ethics committee, intellectual property committee, legal counsel, or institution responsible for the investigation).
There will be cases that can be identified in time, i.e., before the publication of the article, and others identified after its publication. In all cases, the recommendation is to follow the protocols or guidelines suggested by the COPE and receive guidance from the relevant institutional bodies. If the case is not severe, is in the process of publication and the authors present their excuses and justifications, it will be the decision of the editor to continue with the publication of the article once the corrections are made. If the fault is severe, the editor will reject the article and inform the decision to all those involved in the process. If the identification and confirmation of an error, fraud, or breach of ethics are subsequent to publication, the editor may proceed with the following actions (after review of COPE protocols or guidelines, advice from the relevant institutional bodies, and support from the editorial committee): if the errors presented in the article are minor or unintentional, an erratum may be published in the next issue. If the error is deemed to be serious, the article will be retracted, those involved in the process will be informed of the decision and the authors will be notified of the measures taken by the journal.
A retraction is a statement that an article has violated good practice in research, writing, or publication. A retracted article is not deleted or removed from the journal, but the word RETRACTED is superimposed on each page of the article as a notice to those who may have previously used it. The retraction is also updated in Crossmark to inform readers that there has been a change in the article. For the Revista Guillermo de Ockham, amendments to an article (corrections, retractions) strive for the integrity of the publication, and in no case should they be interpreted as punitive actions or be used by third parties to punish the authors involved. It will be the role of the affiliate institutions of the authors to investigate potential misconduct and take action in accordance with their policies.
The editorial team of the Revista Guillermo de Ockham takes research and publication ethics very seriously. Annually, the editor and his editorial committee will review and update the journal's ethical policies. For this purpose, they will review the new COPE updates and invite the Bioethics Committee of the Universidad de San Buenaventura to participate in the review, update, and provide guidance to all actors involved in the research and publication process.
We invite the entire community of authors, peer reviewers, readers, researchers, and the general audience of the journal to report any dishonest act that jeopardizes the integrity of the research and publication. Both the editor and its editorial committee are attentive to receiving and managing in a timely manner any complaint and activate in a timely manner the protocols and escalate the cases to the relevant authorities.